The free market at work in Houston

[bripat9643]

I knew that douche bag response was coming.

This is the kind of nozzle they had on the gas can I bought. It simply doesn't work

View attachment 147272

You know, I have a similar nozzle on the little gas can that I bought. You take off the cap, pull out the center, insert the nozzle through the hole in the cap after you pull out the center, and then screw the whole thing down securely.

By the way..............that green thing at the end of your nozzle? That is what is stopping the gas from flowing out the end. You might want to look into that.

And you have the temerity to call me a "stupid liberal" when in fact, you are too dumb to operate a gas can.

When I'm not calling you a douche bag, because that's what you are.

BTW, you listed 5 steps to use the nozzle. The old nozzle took one step: pour.

Interestingly enough, the mower that I bought last year has a large opening for gas.

All I really have to do is pour. Do you really not know how to pour gas out of a can?

Yeah, that's real safe, pour gas without a nozzle on the can. Obviously you don't see the irony in proposing not to use the so-called "safety nozzle."

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643 :
The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Slade3200 :
Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

 

[Dim Bulb]

When I'm not calling you a douche bag, because that's what you are.

BTW, you listed 5 steps to use the nozzle. The old nozzle took one step: pour.

Interestingly enough, the mower that I bought last year has a large opening for gas.

All I really have to do is pour. Do you really not know how to pour gas out of a can?

Yeah, that's real safe, pour gas without a nozzle on the can. Obviously you don't see the irony in proposing not to use the so-called "safety nozzle."

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

I was just thinking the same thing. Gas nozzles? In defense of Brit though, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. This ain't it. Which raises the question of why a smart guy like Brit was misled into buying a piece of crap.

Or perhaps he isn't as smart as you think... I asked some very fair questions towards are debate which he avoided and turned to gas nozzles. That's not a display of intelligence. It's weak deflection

He's a pro

bripat9643 :
The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Slade3200 :
Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

That's two posts in a row with no profanity! Nicely done!

 

[jc456]

Is this like a penny an once tax on soft drinks in Chicago? Price gouging by politicians?

 

[Dim Bulb]

You know, I have a similar nozzle on the little gas can that I bought. You take off the cap, pull out the center, insert the nozzle through the hole in the cap after you pull out the center, and then screw the whole thing down securely.

By the way..............that green thing at the end of your nozzle? That is what is stopping the gas from flowing out the end. You might want to look into that.

And you have the temerity to call me a "stupid liberal" when in fact, you are too dumb to operate a gas can.

When I'm not calling you a douche bag, because that's what you are.

BTW, you listed 5 steps to use the nozzle. The old nozzle took one step: pour.

Interestingly enough, the mower that I bought last year has a large opening for gas.

All I really have to do is pour. Do you really not know how to pour gas out of a can?

Yeah, that's real safe, pour gas without a nozzle on the can. Obviously you don't see the irony in proposing not to use the so-called "safety nozzle."

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

 

[bripat9643]

Is this like a penny an once tax on soft drinks in Chicago? Price gouging by politicians?

Yes, or the $0.50/gal excise tax on gasoline, or the $5.00/pack excise tax on cigarettes.

 

[Slade3200]

bripat9643 :
The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Slade3200 :
Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

I'm asking you to defend your arguement not run from it like you did. Under your premise... IF a doctor did that then there would be no consequence. Is that correct?

 

[bripat9643]

When I'm not calling you a douche bag, because that's what you are.

BTW, you listed 5 steps to use the nozzle. The old nozzle took one step: pour.

Interestingly enough, the mower that I bought last year has a large opening for gas.

All I really have to do is pour. Do you really not know how to pour gas out of a can?

Yeah, that's real safe, pour gas without a nozzle on the can. Obviously you don't see the irony in proposing not to use the so-called "safety nozzle."

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

Pollution only occurs in places that no one (or the government) owns. You can't pollute someone else's property because they will sue you. Where streams and lakes are owned by someone, you'll find virtually no pollution. The way to prevent pollution is to sell off unowned assets like streams and lakes. Where that isn't feasible, like the atmosphere, then simply impose the cost of the pollution onto the polluters.

Gouging laws do the exact opposite of what you claim. They prevent the market from reflecting the true cost of an item. While the vendor may not have paid anything close to $99/case for bottled water, the next case he buys will cost a good fraction of that amount. If he can't get money to cover that cost, then no one is going to be going to great effort to bring bottled water into the city.

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643 :
The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Slade3200 :
Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

I'm asking you to defend your arguement not run from it like you did. Under your premise... IF a doctor did that then there would be no consequence. Is that correct?

You're asking me to solve some ridiculous situation that will never happen. Of course there would be a consequence. I just described it for you. Furthermore, there has never been a situation where a doctor had to treat someone in 5 minutes or the patient would die. There are always EMTs on the scene who stabilize the situation and give the doctors some time to do what they need to do. Furthermore, doctors are seldom the ones who demand payment. They leave that dirty business to hospital staff.

Your scenario is absurd.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Interestingly enough, the mower that I bought last year has a large opening for gas.

All I really have to do is pour. Do you really not know how to pour gas out of a can?

Yeah, that's real safe, pour gas without a nozzle on the can. Obviously you don't see the irony in proposing not to use the so-called "safety nozzle."

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

Pollution only occurs in places that no one (or the government) owns. You can't pollute someone else's property because they will sue you. Where streams and lakes are owned by someone, you'll find virtually no pollution. The way to prevent pollution is to sell off unowned assets like streams and lakes. Where that isn't feasible, like the atmosphere, then simply impose the cost of the pollution onto the polluters.

Gouging laws do the exact opposite of what you claim. They prevent the market from reflecting the true cost of an item. While the vendor may not have paid anything close to $99/case for bottled water, the next case he buys will cost a good fraction of that amount. If he can't get money to cover that cost, then no one is going to be going to great effort to bring bottled water into the city.

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

Again, thank you for no expletives in your reply! You misunderstand. I am taking no position, just telling you what an institutional economist would say. Your first graf contains a real whopper, but otherwise is describing exactly how external costs in a market work. I am still chuckling about "where streams are owned by someone..." that's funny.

An institutional economist would disagree with your second two grafs. He/she would say that the gouging laws are there to prevent market failure. I don't know that I agree with them or with you. The former because while I like the theory it doesn't always work (see, e.g., Hayek). The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

 

[Boss]

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

But that's not true. You're allocating resources based on who can pay the most for them, not who needs them the most. Normally, this is an acceptable principle of free market economics. In times of disaster it becomes a moral and ethical issue which trumps capitalism.

You're asking me to solve some ridiculous situation that will never happen.

One of the reasons it would never happen is because we have laws against it. Just as we have laws against price gouging. It's a bad analogy but he's trying to demonstrate the ethical argument. I don't care how much you support free market economics, I'm one of the biggest supporters of free market, there is still a point at which ethics and morals supercede.

Now, let me say this... Make no mistake, there are only two basic ways to allocate resources. One is through a market system, preferably a free market... the other is rationing. 99.9% of the time, the free market approach is best. In times of disaster, rationing is a better alternative because of the ethics issue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, that's real safe, pour gas without a nozzle on the can. Obviously you don't see the irony in proposing not to use the so-called "safety nozzle."

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

Pollution only occurs in places that no one (or the government) owns. You can't pollute someone else's property because they will sue you. Where streams and lakes are owned by someone, you'll find virtually no pollution. The way to prevent pollution is to sell off unowned assets like streams and lakes. Where that isn't feasible, like the atmosphere, then simply impose the cost of the pollution onto the polluters.

Gouging laws do the exact opposite of what you claim. They prevent the market from reflecting the true cost of an item. While the vendor may not have paid anything close to $99/case for bottled water, the next case he buys will cost a good fraction of that amount. If he can't get money to cover that cost, then no one is going to be going to great effort to bring bottled water into the city.

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

Again, thank you for no expletives in your reply! You misunderstand. I am taking no position, just telling you what an institutional economist would say. Your first graf contains a real whopper, but otherwise is describing exactly how external costs in a market work. I am still chuckling about "where streams are owned by someone..." that's funny.

An institutional economist would disagree with your second two grafs. He/she would say that the gouging laws are there to prevent market failure. I don't know that I agree with them or with you. The former because while I like the theory it doesn't always work (see, e.g., Hayek). The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

Sounds interesting. Can you explain further?

 

[Dim Bulb]

Well you've successfully pivoted the conversation to something ridiculous. Well done!

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

Pollution only occurs in places that no one (or the government) owns. You can't pollute someone else's property because they will sue you. Where streams and lakes are owned by someone, you'll find virtually no pollution. The way to prevent pollution is to sell off unowned assets like streams and lakes. Where that isn't feasible, like the atmosphere, then simply impose the cost of the pollution onto the polluters.

Gouging laws do the exact opposite of what you claim. They prevent the market from reflecting the true cost of an item. While the vendor may not have paid anything close to $99/case for bottled water, the next case he buys will cost a good fraction of that amount. If he can't get money to cover that cost, then no one is going to be going to great effort to bring bottled water into the city.

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

Again, thank you for no expletives in your reply! You misunderstand. I am taking no position, just telling you what an institutional economist would say. Your first graf contains a real whopper, but otherwise is describing exactly how external costs in a market work. I am still chuckling about "where streams are owned by someone..." that's funny.

An institutional economist would disagree with your second two grafs. He/she would say that the gouging laws are there to prevent market failure. I don't know that I agree with them or with you. The former because while I like the theory it doesn't always work (see, e.g., Hayek). The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

Sounds interesting. Can you explain further?

A free market presupposes a couple of things: (1) everyone has the same information about supply and demand (as expressed through price) and (2) there are no external costs not accounted for in the pricing of the good in question. In the case of the $99 bottle of water, an economist would argue that neither of these presuppositions applies. First, not everyone has the same information about water supply (free in their sink or where to pay money for it if they knew), nor do they have the same information about the intensity of the storm. Risk averse people will assume it will be really really bad, and, like brit, buy early. Risk preferential people will not. Second, it is clear this disparate information causes an externality to misprice the good in question (again, this would be an institutional ecomomist's argument, not mine). The supplier is pricing at a level that doesn't support allocating the good, but rather takes advantage of the disparate information. Put simply, if you thought your sink would have running water tomorrow, you'd never pay it. But nobody has this information in such a crisis time.

Interesting that so many people have built a lot of wealth during wars and crises. Not by the mechanism of the free market that brit and others posit, but rather by using the lack of information in the market to their advantage. That's market failure because you're not allocating resources through price any more, you are rather, in an economist's terms, pricing the product for the lack of information. That's an external cost.

 

[Slade3200]

bripat9643 :
The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Slade3200 :
Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

I'm asking you to defend your arguement not run from it like you did. Under your premise... IF a doctor did that then there would be no consequence. Is that correct?

You're asking me to solve some ridiculous situation that will never happen. Of course there would be a consequence. I just described it for you. Furthermore, there has never been a situation where a doctor had to treat someone in 5 minutes or the patient would die. There are always EMTs on the scene who stabilize the situation and give the doctors some time to do what they need to do. Furthermore, doctors are seldom the ones who demand payment. They leave that dirty business to hospital staff.

Your scenario is absurd.

Your skirting around the issue is absurd... since you seem incapable of getting the point how about I use some real life examples. Let's say Bernie Madoff and how he tricked hard working Americans into giving him billions of dollars. That is classic exploitation, but it sounds like your stance is that it's good ol free market capitalism and Bernie did good for himself, is that right?

How about millions of gallons of oil leaking into our oceans, or barrels of toxic waste destroying soil and water sources for entire towns.... I could go on all day to show why common sense regulation isnt only good, but necessary for our country.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat9643 :
The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Slade3200 :
Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

I'm asking you to defend your arguement not run from it like you did. Under your premise... IF a doctor did that then there would be no consequence. Is that correct?

You're asking me to solve some ridiculous situation that will never happen. Of course there would be a consequence. I just described it for you. Furthermore, there has never been a situation where a doctor had to treat someone in 5 minutes or the patient would die. There are always EMTs on the scene who stabilize the situation and give the doctors some time to do what they need to do. Furthermore, doctors are seldom the ones who demand payment. They leave that dirty business to hospital staff.

Your scenario is absurd.

Your skirting around the issue is absurd... since you seem incapable of getting the point how about I use some real life examples. Let's say Bernie Madoff and how he tricked hard working Americans into giving him billions of dollars. That is classic exploitation, but it sounds like your stance is that it's good ol free market capitalism and Bernie did good for himself, is that right?

Bernie Madoff committed fraud, which is already a crime. Yet, it still happened. Legal remedies aren't going to prevent something from ever happening.

How about millions of gallons of oil leaking into our oceans, or barrels of toxic waste destroying soil and water sources for entire towns.... I could go on all day to show why common sense regulation isnt only good, but necessary for our country.

The oceans aren't owned by anyone. I have already discussed why this is an issue that market remedies can't solve. As for toxic waste destroying entire towns, any company that did this would be sued into bankruptcy. It's ironic that government agencies are responsible for most of the instances of this that we know of, like Love Canal.

 

[Slade3200]

Come on bripat9643 enough with the gas nozzles, back to the real discussion. Address our dialogue from a few pages back. See above

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

I'm asking you to defend your arguement not run from it like you did. Under your premise... IF a doctor did that then there would be no consequence. Is that correct?

You're asking me to solve some ridiculous situation that will never happen. Of course there would be a consequence. I just described it for you. Furthermore, there has never been a situation where a doctor had to treat someone in 5 minutes or the patient would die. There are always EMTs on the scene who stabilize the situation and give the doctors some time to do what they need to do. Furthermore, doctors are seldom the ones who demand payment. They leave that dirty business to hospital staff.

Your scenario is absurd.

Your skirting around the issue is absurd... since you seem incapable of getting the point how about I use some real life examples. Let's say Bernie Madoff and how he tricked hard working Americans into giving him billions of dollars. That is classic exploitation, but it sounds like your stance is that it's good ol free market capitalism and Bernie did good for himself, is that right?

Bernie Madoff committed fraud, which is already a crime. Yet, it still happened. Legal remedies aren't going to prevent something from ever happening.

How about millions of gallons of oil leaking into our oceans, or barrels of toxic waste destroying soil and water sources for entire towns.... I could go on all day to show why common sense regulation isnt only good, but necessary for our country.

The oceans aren't owned by anyone. I have already discussed why this is an issue that market remedies can't solve. As for toxic waste destroying entire towns, any company that did this would be sued into bankruptcy. It's ironic that government agencies are responsible for most of the instances of this that we know of, like Love Canal.

Legal remedies will never prevent everything bad from happening but they reduce risk by instituting safe guards and and oversight.

You are right that government agency also cause problems, yet you don't see the need for regulations. Suing a company into bankruptcy is fine and dandy but means nothing to those who die or get terminally ill because of their actions. There are still towns in the US that have radioactive soil, so the effects last much longer than a lawsuit.

 

[OnePercenter]

3. If you charge somebody to park on your property, and said property isn't zoned correctly, and the property isn't licensed and insured for business use, you are committing a criminal act.

It is not a crime. It is a code violation. You are not a criminal.

Operating a business without a license violations range from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on the amount of monies involved. ALL are a criminal act.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

Pollution only occurs in places that no one (or the government) owns. You can't pollute someone else's property because they will sue you. Where streams and lakes are owned by someone, you'll find virtually no pollution. The way to prevent pollution is to sell off unowned assets like streams and lakes. Where that isn't feasible, like the atmosphere, then simply impose the cost of the pollution onto the polluters.

Gouging laws do the exact opposite of what you claim. They prevent the market from reflecting the true cost of an item. While the vendor may not have paid anything close to $99/case for bottled water, the next case he buys will cost a good fraction of that amount. If he can't get money to cover that cost, then no one is going to be going to great effort to bring bottled water into the city.

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

Again, thank you for no expletives in your reply! You misunderstand. I am taking no position, just telling you what an institutional economist would say. Your first graf contains a real whopper, but otherwise is describing exactly how external costs in a market work. I am still chuckling about "where streams are owned by someone..." that's funny.

An institutional economist would disagree with your second two grafs. He/she would say that the gouging laws are there to prevent market failure. I don't know that I agree with them or with you. The former because while I like the theory it doesn't always work (see, e.g., Hayek). The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

Sounds interesting. Can you explain further?

A free market presupposes a couple of things: (1) everyone has the same information about supply and demand (as expressed through price) and (2) there are no external costs not accounted for in the pricing of the good in question. In the case of the $99 bottle of water, an economist would argue that neither of these presuppositions applies. First, not everyone has the same information about water supply (free in their sink or where to pay money for it if they knew), nor do they have the same information about the intensity of the storm. Risk averse people will assume it will be really really bad, and, like brit, buy early. Risk preferential people will not. Second, it is clear this disparate information causes an externality to misprice the good in question (again, this would be an institutional ecomomist's argument, not mine). The supplier is pricing at a level that doesn't support allocating the good, but rather takes advantage of the disparate information. Put simply, if you thought your sink would have running water tomorrow, you'd never pay it. But nobody has this information in such a crisis time.

Interesting that so many people have built a lot of wealth during wars and crises. Not by the mechanism of the free market that brit and others posit, but rather by using the lack of information in the market to their advantage. That's market failure because you're not allocating resources through price any more, you are rather, in an economist's terms, pricing the product for the lack of information. That's an external cost.

A free market presupposes a couple of things: (1) everyone has the same information about supply and demand (as expressed through price)

I disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean I demonstrated how government regulation is counter productive.

Institutional economists would argue that laws are simply methods to internalize external costs and correct free market failure. The free market fails when costs are incurred by people outside of the market in question. Thus, factories that pollute nearby streams and wells and cause damages to people living nearby who neither use their products nor work at the factory are "free"to the company and impose external costs. The government steps in with laws to restrict pollution and fines factories that impose those costs, thus internalizing the cost imposed on the innocents.

So a gouging law, in an economic sense, can be seen not as government interference, but rather as free market correction, ensuring that all costs are reflected in the market. In some senses as my OP points out all laws are simply put in place to protect against market failure. Tougher time making that argument with a gouging law.... and some fancy gas nozzle.

Pollution only occurs in places that no one (or the government) owns. You can't pollute someone else's property because they will sue you. Where streams and lakes are owned by someone, you'll find virtually no pollution. The way to prevent pollution is to sell off unowned assets like streams and lakes. Where that isn't feasible, like the atmosphere, then simply impose the cost of the pollution onto the polluters.

Gouging laws do the exact opposite of what you claim. They prevent the market from reflecting the true cost of an item. While the vendor may not have paid anything close to $99/case for bottled water, the next case he buys will cost a good fraction of that amount. If he can't get money to cover that cost, then no one is going to be going to great effort to bring bottled water into the city.

The $99 price isn't "market failure." That's the market doing what it's supposed to do: allocate scarce resources to the people who need them the most. Your way allocates them to the people who happen to be in the right place at the right time. It saves none for anyone who may come by later.

Again, thank you for no expletives in your reply! You misunderstand. I am taking no position, just telling you what an institutional economist would say. Your first graf contains a real whopper, but otherwise is describing exactly how external costs in a market work. I am still chuckling about "where streams are owned by someone..." that's funny.

An institutional economist would disagree with your second two grafs. He/she would say that the gouging laws are there to prevent market failure. I don't know that I agree with them or with you. The former because while I like the theory it doesn't always work (see, e.g., Hayek). The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

The latter because there are external costs at work in charging for a $99 bottle of water.

Sounds interesting. Can you explain further?

A free market presupposes a couple of things: (1) everyone has the same information about supply and demand (as expressed through price) and

Wrong

(2) there are no external costs not accounted for in the pricing of the good in question.

In the case of the $99 bottle of water, an economist would argue that neither of these presuppositions applies. First, not everyone has the same information about water supply (free in their sink or where to pay money for it if they knew), nor do they have the same information about the intensity of the storm. Risk averse people will assume it will be really really bad, and, like brit, buy early. Risk preferential people will not. Second, it is clear this disparate information causes an externality to misprice the good in question (again, this would be an institutional ecomomist's argument, not mine). The supplier is pricing at a level that doesn't support allocating the good, but rather takes advantage of the disparate information. Put simply, if you thought your sink would have running water tomorrow, you'd never pay it. But nobody has this information in such a crisis time.

The fact that some people don't plan ahead, no matter what the reason, is exactly why the $99 price is beneficial. It allows those who didn't plant to at least get some water, whereas the pre-hurricane price means no water will be available to them. You obviously don't understand the meaning of "allocate." It doesn't mean to unload it as fast as possible to whoever happens to show up first. It means everyone can get some at a price they are willing to pay.

Interesting that so many people have built a lot of wealth during wars and crises. Not by the mechanism of the free market that brit and others posit, but rather by using the lack of information in the market to their advantage. That's market failure because you're not allocating resources through price any more, you are rather, in an economist's terms, pricing the product for the lack of information. That's an external cost.

Spreading information is one thing prices do extremely well. It provides an incentive for some people to discover information as early as possible. This data is then transmitted to the rest of the population through price changes. It's not a "market failure." It's one of the market's chief advantages over government allocation of resources. The alternative is for some bureaucrat to set prices, and what are those based on? Certainly not any intimate knowledge of market conditions. When bureaucrats set prices we end up with surpluses and shortages. We have a Soviet style economy - people standing in long lines for some products, and warehouse full of stuff that no one wants. That's exactly what you are supporting.

 

[Dim Bulb]

ROFL! You come up with some ridiculous fantasy and ask me to justify it? No doctor is going to ask you that. For one thing, if word ever got out about what he did, he would become a pariah where he lives, and the media would ensure that word got out.

I'm asking you to defend your arguement not run from it like you did. Under your premise... IF a doctor did that then there would be no consequence. Is that correct?

You're asking me to solve some ridiculous situation that will never happen. Of course there would be a consequence. I just described it for you. Furthermore, there has never been a situation where a doctor had to treat someone in 5 minutes or the patient would die. There are always EMTs on the scene who stabilize the situation and give the doctors some time to do what they need to do. Furthermore, doctors are seldom the ones who demand payment. They leave that dirty business to hospital staff.

Your scenario is absurd.

Your skirting around the issue is absurd... since you seem incapable of getting the point how about I use some real life examples. Let's say Bernie Madoff and how he tricked hard working Americans into giving him billions of dollars. That is classic exploitation, but it sounds like your stance is that it's good ol free market capitalism and Bernie did good for himself, is that right?

Bernie Madoff committed fraud, which is already a crime. Yet, it still happened. Legal remedies aren't going to prevent something from ever happening.

How about millions of gallons of oil leaking into our oceans, or barrels of toxic waste destroying soil and water sources for entire towns.... I could go on all day to show why common sense regulation isnt only good, but necessary for our country.

The oceans aren't owned by anyone. I have already discussed why this is an issue that market remedies can't solve. As for toxic waste destroying entire towns, any company that did this would be sued into bankruptcy. It's ironic that government agencies are responsible for most of the instances of this that we know of, like Love Canal.

Legal remedies will never prevent everything bad from happening but they reduce risk by instituting safe guards and and oversight.

You are right that government agency also cause problems, yet you don't see the need for regulations. Suing a company into bankruptcy is fine and dandy but means nothing to those who die or get terminally ill because of their actions. There are still towns in the US that have radioactive soil, so the effects last much longer than a lawsuit.

Economists would argue that legal remedies are a "tax" that attempt to increase the cost of production to account for the externalities. That's where you start getting into central planning arguments.